delete_device_ipsec_phase2_interface

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a destructive operation, and it does little beyond implying deletion. It doesn't say the removal is permanent, what happens to dependent phase2 entries or IPSec tunnels, whether ADOM locking is required, or that a commit/install is needed for the change to take effect. 'device DB' is the only hint of scope.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a tight Args/Returns block with no filler. The Returns line is near-redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs almost nothing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained here. However, for a destructive, unannotated tool in a FortiManager-style workflow, the description omits the operational context an agent needs: dependency on the phase1 interface, ADOM lock, and commit semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well: it explains device as the managed device name, name as the phase2-interface/tunnel name, and vdom as the VDOM with a 'root' default. All three parameters are given meaning beyond their bare titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: delete an IPsec phase2-interface from a device's device DB. The resource is precise enough to separate it from the sibling delete_device_ipsec_phase1_interface and the create/update/get variants, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus the create/update variants, no preconditions such as whether the phase1 parent must exist, the ADOM must be locked, or a commit is required afterwards. The agent must infer all of that from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.